Comment 2 for bug 1843993

Your example footprint would be solved by using a complex pad.

I've been thinking about your suggestion to assume same pad numbers are connected in the footprint and I like it. However, there may be some case I can't think of now that would break if we changed the assumption. It also prevents us from requiring board routing between pads where that would be desirable. In generally, it is good to avoid changing existing behavior if it doesn't actively break things.

Instead of a universal joining, I would prefer we do the following:

1) Add a new field for JumperID
2) If 2 pads in the same footprint share a net name and a JumperID, they will be considered joined for the purposes of ratsnest and drc

This would allow us to not only use this for the same pad number but also for dissimilar pad numbers where it is useful for single-sided board routing (e.g. high-power LED boards)